Tanks - Fire-control system

[oukej 2911]

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

Calculating lead in not instantaneous, nor is moving the turret to align the gun properly.

Can be...more or less :)

Also there are different systems, older, newer, solutions can be acquired by using different methods and information sources (e.g. calculating lead from turret's angular speed while tracking is not the only one).
Simulating these nuances is outside of our scope. We'd be aiming for just one system, one keybind, one mechanic. Add a new gameplay choice to fill in one blank space in the combined arms big picture :).

I hope I won't disappoint tank simers too much, but we're not about to simulate one particular system, nor all of them. We're trying to choose a compromise that generally works well for the game, can be quickly grasped but at the same time is challenging enough and isn't a silver bullet for every situation. And possibly have some customization of it.
Btw - you've raised good concerns about it being too fast and not requiring player to weigh its usage. We'll be on lookout for that.

Feedback from the game and playing with the system is the most valuable for us!

[lex__1 422]

Fast is not bad. Why stretch the process readiness to fire ?
The fact that the simulated gunfire from a tank, takes precedence imitation low quality, it's sad.

 

[Nikoteen 24]

13 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

Fast is not bad. Why stretch the process readiness to fire ?
The fact that the simulated gunfire from a tank, takes precedence imitation low quality, it's sad.

 

From the realism point of view : as already discussed, it takes time for the process to complete (your laser was beamed in a fraction of second, now you know the distance, good. What about the speed of target related to the movement of the firing platform, calculation associated and gun readyness ?)

 

From the gameplay point of view : it is best to have a (short) acquisition time to prevent the "magic button" feeling. I lase, fire, boom, next target. In that particular case, there is very little difference with the previous model of "tab lock", what kind of pleasure there is to instakill a target ? I still remember the former locking system in ArmA 2 when there was no delay at all for MANPADS for instance. How awful it was... 

[lex__1 422]

24 minutes ago, nikoteen said:

From the realism point of view : as already discussed, it takes time for the process to complete (your laser was beamed in a fraction of second, now you know the distance, good. What about the speed of target related to the movement of the firing platform, calculation associated and gun readyness ?)

 

From the gameplay point of view : it is best to have a (short) acquisition time to prevent the "magic button" feeling. I lase, fire, boom, next target. In that particular case, there is very little difference with the previous model of "tab lock", what kind of pleasure there is to instakill a target ? I still remember the former locking system in ArmA 2 when there was no delay at all for MANPADS for instance. How awful it was... 

For this reason, the priority of the simulation, high quality, action modern models of the tank, in preparation for the shot, closer to me. This by itself will solve the issues of speed of execution of these operations.

[darkChozo 133]

Right now it's possible to bind the FCS key to the fire button. This gives you an instantaneous firing solution, meaning that if you're pointing at a target you're very likely to hit it. I was able to semi-reliably hit a loitering Littlebird at 1.5+ km with a tank cannon using this method. That should be a near-impossible shot, and I was hitting maybe 20-30% of the time.

 

Even if that's fixed, I think it demonstrates why the lack of a delay is a gameplay issue. The instantaneous lock-and-fire could easily be done using a macro instead, and is not all that hard to pull off manually. If the idea is for the current system is for it to be scan-then-shoot, and not a instantaneously autoranging cannon, then the system as-is doesn't deliver.

[Beagle 684]

Shooting down a moving helicopter is not a problem for any FCS since the 90's. There is even a multi purpose ammunition for that that can be programed, MPAT. It can also hit targets behind cover.

the 1 second delay for a fire solution does not stop you from doing that as long as you can keep the target in sight. Now tell me you can shoot down a manovering helicopter moving perpendicular at 300kmh 9 out of 10 times... that might be over the top.

1500meters is far from extreme ranges. In the 90's our heavy recon platoons Leopard II A4 on training deployment in Shilo, Canada hit targets at ranges up to 2800 meters. back then only the commanders were professional soldiers...the rest of us were conscripts with just 6 months of training.

 

btw. the max manual range input of 1900m should also go away. eben the old FCS in the A4 accepted ranges up to 4000m. IN fact it was only limited by the rangefinders ability to deliver a clean return. Fog and humindity and dirty lenses could reduce the possible measurement a lot. TI was also hindered alot lot by that, but thats anoher topic since ArmA 3 knows only one type of hyper sensitive supercooled TI. How to put those into rifle scopes and googles is not plausible to me. Thats a problem if you give tanks only the pro and not the cons...like very vulnerable optics (when armour flaps are opened) and TI often not beeing able to surely identify the ttarget at large range. ANother considertion ust be that at ranges beyond 2000 meters...armour suddently really works well against KE ammunitons...HEAT is the better choice then. And there we go again...any change to FCS will be arcade without any change to the way armor is simulated.

[darkChozo 133]

To be clear, when I say "loitering Littlebird", I meant one following an AI loiter waypoint. That means it was going in a ~500m diameter circle at ~150kph while also bobbing up and down 5-10m. A 1 second delay would have a massive impact, as the direction of its velocity is constantly changing. Still possible to hit it, but it requires a lot of manual adjustment. I've tried it, it's fun.

 

Point being, it was a fairly small target at a decent range moving at high speed and constantly accelerating, and I was still able to hit it by putting my crosshair on it and clicking, no prediction required. That's really powerful, and really boring.

[Strike_NOR 898]

6 hours ago, darkChozo said:

Right now it's possible to bind the FCS key to the fire button. This gives you an instantaneous firing solution, meaning that if you're pointing at a target you're very likely to hit it.

 

If this is true, then the new FCS mechanic is like an aimbot. It will just fling shells in the correct place every time. The only thing that can possibly cause a miss is if the target changes course before the shell has landed, which is impossible to predict.

 

I also think there should be at least 0.5 second to 1 second delay between lase and ready to fire. For gameplay reasons

[oukej 2911]

7 hours ago, Beagle said:

btw. the max manual range input of 1900m should also go away.

It should be possible to go up to 3000m since the FCS has been added (2500 for APC with autocannons). Has some turret got forgotten in the process?
It can be increased even more.

[oukej 2911]

 

32 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

6 hours ago, darkChozo said:

Right now it's possible to bind the FCS key to the fire button.

If this is true, then the new FCS mechanic is like an aimbot.

Yeah, it is and it's wrong ;)

[Varanon 892]

12 hours ago, oukej said:

Can be...more or less :)

Also there are different systems, older, newer, solutions can be acquired by using different methods and information sources (e.g. calculating lead from turret's angular speed while tracking is not the only one).
Simulating these nuances is outside of our scope. 

 

Wouldn't it be easy to introduce a delay until the lasing is complete, and simply read that from the tank#s config entry ? That way, you could simply configure the delay in with the actual tank and for modern (i.e. 2035) systems, you could go without a delay while current day mods could outfit their tanks with appropriate realistic delays

[lex__1 422]

http://tanknutdave.com/fire-control-systems/

 

http://www.aselsan.com.tr/en-us/capabilities/electro-optic-systems/main-battle-tank-and-infantry-fighting-vehicle-sighting-applications/eagleeye-thermal-sighting-and-fire-control-system

[R3vo 2654]

29 minutes ago, Varanon said:

 

Wouldn't it be easy to introduce a delay until the lasing is complete, and simply read that from the tank#s config entry ? That way, you could simply configure the delay in with the actual tank and for modern (i.e. 2035) systems, you could go without a delay while current day mods could outfit their tanks with appropriate realistic delays

 

That's the way to go.

[Beagle 684]

Well, technically speaking an FCS should be ecactly that: an aimbot. Just stay on the target, no prediction needed, the FCS does it all for you.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

koth admins: "can you instead give us 1945-era fire control systems? its better balanced and more gameplay"

On 3/10/2017 at 8:17 AM, oukej said:

I hope I won't disappoint tank simers too much, ...

 

cant take a step without disappointing one crowd or another :)

 

we eagerly await

[Beagle 684]

Modern Tank combat s not about "mad skillz" with the controls. Since the first hit probability is beyond 90%, it's all about concealed movement and positioning and aticipating the adversary. Modern Tank combat is more like snipers fighting it out, not like an heavy chivalry assault.

I see no reason why this should not be reflected properly in the game. Moving in terrain depressions and on forest roads into a planned  fire position to avoid premature detection was a big thing back then in the 90's and the manouvers performed in the central german highlands (Mittelgebirge)

 

I can see hw that might be a problem in KOTH pvp, but that löast time i had a look at ArmA 3 is was a game trying to portrayind a future military, not street gang warfare.

 

I already wrote it it the advent of ArmA 3, that from a pure PvP aspect, modern and futurearfar s problematic.

5 years ago I strongly promoted a possible ArmA III going back to the 60's or 70's for exactly that reasons.

[Beagle 684]

On 9.3.2017 at 11:17 PM, oukej said:

Btw - you've raised good concerns about it being too fast and not requiring player to weigh its usage. We'll be on lookout for that.

Feedback from the game and playing with the system is the most valuable for us!

1 premier reason to not use a laser rangefinder in the first assault is....laser detectors.

If you lase, the adversery is warned, IR smoke will be popped and they roll back from fire position into cover.

That can be a bad thing if your own forces are just a recon detachment consitung of 2 lightly armed and armoured forward observers (Striders?) and 2 MTB for fire support (Kuma)

 

this technique is still used RL with Fenneks and Leopards in reconaissance detachments. (was Luchs II and Leopard II originally)

For the receiving end it does not matter of you are lased by a handheld device or avehicle based one, you will receive a warning and/or automated countermeasured.

 

Just another aspect to give you some thoughts.

 

This official Bundeswehr educational clip might give you an Idea, thats the way we were trained in the mid 90's.

 

 

 

This is what I mostly do in the editor, trying to recreate those old standard scenarios. I have mostly given up on MP, because no matter what you do, in ArmA MP its more about tactical coolness "Sam Fisher Style" not about strategy and tactics....often not even in CTI Warfare (the two servers that stil exist) where one would exspect it.

 

Spähtrupp: 21st century version

 

 

[Nikoteen 24]

Beagle,

As it seems you have some knowledge, does LWR work even when you lase in immediate surrounding ? or only when you are on-the-target ?

I want to know if this could be a valid RL strategy to lase not far from the target to avoid detection ?

[Beagle 684]

9 hours ago, nikoteen said:

Beagle,

As it seems you have some knowledge, does LWR work even when you lase in immediate surrounding ? or only when you are on-the-target ?

I want to know if this could be a valid RL strategy to lase not far from the target to avoid detection ?

the laser range finder works on most reflective surfaces. The type used in vehicles is quite powerfull and able to blind a human eye to make safe there is enough return at all. Of couse it can measure the range of a spot of ground, albeit it is prefered to find something "solid" standing upright. I may happen that the return from an object at range is not enough and you will get an ERROR displayed. The practice targets where made from white painted plywood, they would give always and perfect returns. But all I know about is technology that was fielded 25 years ago. I have no clue what the system of today are capable of.

 

But the main point is that you can not use the laser all the time, it will heat up with use and shut down to avoid damage to the solid state laser rod. Lasing a moving target can't be done all day long, so range is measured once and the fire solution is indeed done by calculated angular velocity.

[lex__1 422]

On 10.03.2017 at 0:17 AM, oukej said:

Simulating these nuances is outside of our scope. We'd be aiming for just one system, one keybind, one mechanic. Add a new gameplay choice to fill in one blank space in the combined arms big picture :).

I hope I won't disappoint tank simers too much, but we're not about to simulate one particular system, nor all of them. We're trying to choose a compromise that generally works well for the game, can be quickly grasped but at the same time is challenging enough and isn't a silver bullet for every situation. And possibly have some customization of it.
Btw - you've raised good concerns about it being too fast and not requiring player to weigh its usage. We'll be on lookout for that.

Feedback from the game and playing with the system is the most valuable for us!

What I wanted to say - this is implemented in RHS mods. In the video you will see how the correction of the barrel after the determination of the distance to the goal. Correction is depending on the type of the bullet\the distance\the design of the tank. This is what is called correction of "0" when in the ballistic computer takes into account the design features of the tank. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83302 The location of the barrel relative to the sight arrow is taken into account and it adjusts the stem along the horizontal and vertical marks in the optical sight. In case of correct estimation of the distance the bullet aims at the center of the sight, is the main calibration , which are all the tanks in the world.

This procedure not only takes time but also adjusts the position of the barrel.

It is beyond the scope, only the FCS, or is it outside of the Tanks DLC too?

 

[Nikoteen 24]

4 hours ago, Beagle said:

the laser range finder works on most reflective surfaces. The type used in vehicles is quite powerfull and able to blind a human eye to make safe there is enough return at all. Of couse it can measure the range of a spot of ground, albeit it is prefered to find something "solid" standing upright. I may happen that the return from an object at range is not enough and you will get an ERROR displayed. The practice targets where made from white painted plywood, they would give always and perfect returns. But all I know about is technology that was fielded 25 years ago. I have no clue what the system of today are capable of.

 

But the main point is that you can not use the laser all the time, it will heat up with use and shut down to avoid damage to the solid state laser rod. Lasing a moving target can't be done all day long, so range is measured once and the fire solution is indeed done by calculated angular velocity.

Interesting.

Then maybe from a gameplay POV, it could interesting to make the laser rangefinder work only on objects (such as rock, houses, trees, etc.) That would simulate some challenge to acquire the target.

As a matter of fact anyway since there's no LWR modeled, there's no constraint to lase any kind of target...

[dragon01 902]

We'll probably get an LWR at some point, though. I think that there's no need to restrict lasing to objects, ArmA never modeled such subtleties anyway, your equipment is always 100% reliable and gives perfect returns.

[x3kj 1247]

8 hours ago, nikoteen said:

Then maybe from a gameplay POV, it could interesting to make the laser rangefinder work only on objects (such as rock, houses, trees, etc.) That would simulate some challenge

Except its wrong. You can also lase ground, just not as reliable as a house. And foliage can be problematic for lasers. Something that was recognized and is now used on those thermal/laser signature reduction matts that can be applied to vehicles.

9 hours ago, lex__1 said:

 trunk

Its called chassis or hull.

[Beagle 684]

In fact even those measures like camo nets and IR absobing paint make it difficult to use the laser...hence there is still he manual input and in some cases the good old usage of binocuars with range estimation marks.

It was for a reason why the greatest sccess of the modern tank battle happend in an desert environtment on mostly stationary targets.

[lex__1 422]

FCS problem in a sight of the shooter of the tank. The riflescope is not mobile concerning a trunk of the shooter of the tank and a tower of the tank. The riflescope synchronously moves with these parts of the tank and has no differential on amendments.
The sight of the shooter has to fix a point where the tank trunk has to shoot. The ballistic computer determines point coordinates, makes amendments (weather \type bullet \situation a trunk tank \bend), sends commands for the motor of turn of a tower of the tank and the motor of change of a tilt angle of a trunk of the tank.
Invariable are sizes of amendments considering design features of the tank. This relation, a physical position of a riflescope of the shooter to the physical provision of a trunk on a tank tower.   

The mobile mirror, in a riflescope, fixes position of the center on the purpose, by means of a gyroscope. The tower of the tank and a trunk of the tank change corners, for amendments from the ballistic computer.

The Ballistic computer in Arma3 does not define these amendments and does not consider. He does not make correction of a design of the tank, arrangements concerning a riflescope of the shooter of the tank to a trunk of the shooter of the tank.

http://imgur.com/yVfVB84